everyday living expenses when they have no paycheck? in south dakota, we have an air force base, ellsworth air force base. we have 1,000 civilians that work there and other 3,000 military personnel. those people are extremely special to me. not all of them deprue up in south dakota but they're all living there in south dakota an they're all serving this country. i think that a government shutdown not only affects these individual bus is also going toim pact that local my where they're trying to raise their children and raise their families. you know, two elleds worth air force base b-1 bombers were recently involved in the libyan military strikes. missions like odyssey dawn are likely to continue whether the government shut downs or not. the missions are risky, they're costly, they're vital for our national security. . doesn't it seem unreasonable that our democrat

colleagues not compensate them for the work they have done simply because they want to spend more money and put this country further into debt. these are all the reasons i have fought on every c.r. to make sure they get paid. and i sthanching you for bringing this bill. it is critical, for no other reason, i have had family members and friends that have served, friends that are overseas and stood on that line so we can have the freedom and liberty that we have today. even if i didn't, i'm an american and i recognize the importance of having them there to protect us and to protect our future. and i'm grateful every single day for the sacrifice and the service they offer to us. it is inappropriate for us to play politics with military pay. we owe them some financial

stability in return for all of their service that they provide to us to our children and to our country. thank you for the time. i do appreciate it. mr. carter: i agree with everything you have to say. and as you were speaking, i was thinking, our soldiers are not asking for somebody to excuse their mortgage or somebody to come bail them out, they're just asking to be paid for the dangerous blood, sweat and tears work they are doing right as we speak right now. someone is being fired on in the world in an american uniform. it is frightening baugh it's true. they want the pay check. and they want to stay current on their bills and not asking for these bailouts that this body has become famous for. they are just saying give me my

pay check. i want to recognize my good friend, congressman gohmert. he was the author of this bill. i think we got it done well here, soldiers. forth hood and you start the ball rolling. we have been talking about this for a long time and couldn't get down here -- we are getting close to this deadline and got to get the soldiers' pay. i recognize representative gohmert who authored this along with jack kingston. our leadership is offering an alternative solution which would fund the entire d.o.d. because of all the things that go on and get hurt by not having an appropriations fiven issued up with and -- finished up with and

we will tell them what they want us to do. i'll submit this to you and let you comment. and i would submit if anybody shuts down the government, it's the democrats in the senate, not the republicans in the house. i yield to mr. gohmert the time you wish to consume. mr. gohmert: your comments also point to another aspect, not only your caring about america and those that are fighting for us and your desire to fight for those here in washington who are fighting for us, but shows a great deal about your humility. you have been working on this issue just as long as i have had, and yet you are giving jack great credit and i appreciate that. you have done as much work, perhaps more, than jack and i have and the co-sponsors we have

here. but, you know, things here in washington obviously don't get done in a vacuum. and it means so much when we have folks that are out here -- we have over 100 -- i'm not sure -- how many co-sponsors on the bill. these are people that want to make sure that the military isn't used as pawns in this game. and a lot of us haven't been thrilled about short-term c.r.'s but it does point to one thing. the leadership of the republicans in the house -- even if it is criticized by people like me for doing short-term c.r.'s, they are committed to do everything they can and especially speaker boehner, he has gone as far as humanly possible to do all he could to avoid a shutdown, making it

clear, he doesn't want that. some folks have been critical that he needed to stand up and be ready to do so. he doesn't want one and doesn't believe it's good for america. and so, i know my friend from round rock, texas, sitting in georgetown, texas for so many years, looks at things like i do, as a former district judge. whose -- who's at fault? you look at the evidence, the majority in the house has done everything possible to try to placate the senate. we have passed lots of bills to get the funding done. the evidence is clear. the democratic majority last year refused to do what was

required and pass a budget, no budget passed, no appropriation to fund things. why? you can only speculate about that. it was an election year. perhaps there was concern that if people saw the total amount that they were going to be appropriated, that it might have been worse in the election in november. the people saw through and the majority switched here in the house. and so here we are with these bills that have been filed, pushing another bill this week here in the house. and in response, there has been nothing passed in the senate. and people that know the rules know that the senators, any one of them, and of course it would have to be a democrat of getting anything passed because the democrats under harry reid is in the majority. so any democrat could take the

bills we have done, the c.r.'s we have done, they could take those and do as they did in obamacare. here, again, it's the military. the obamacare bill was a bill to assist with a tax credit first time home buyers who are veterans. and what did the senate do with that bill? they took the bill since it had to originate in the house, they took it and said they are taking the first time home buyer bill for veterans, stripping out every word and substituting therefore about 2,700 pages of the obamacare bill. well, now, if they don't agree, they could have taken any of these c.r.'s we passed and said we don't like it and could have taken those, stripped out every

word as they did for the veterans, take out every word, and substituted therefore, their disastrous bill in obamacare and done it with their own c.r. not one person down there in the majority of the senate has taken the leadership to do that. some have said, well, why isn't the white house involved in what's going on in the senate? why aren't they showing some leadership down there? i heard someone say, that's the white house, it's a separate branch. the vice president of the country is and has been the president of the senate. he has not only a vested interest. he is the presiding officer of the senate. we have heard over and over from this president that joe biden is going to make sure things are done right. what did he do? when the tough got going, he

disappeared. when the going got tough for the president, he went to brazil and played golf and issued an order sending troops into battle and a former president, bush, who quit playing golf who said, knowing our troops are in harm's way and we have troops in harm's way. this president takes time out of his golf round to send more people into libya and to be assured today that hey, we are going to turn everything over to nato and won't be us, my friends, 65% of nato is american military. not a comfort to me. but the least we can do is to make sure that our military, and

that includes reserves and the military knows, it includes all pay, all allowances, you aren't going to miss anything, if the senate will just do right by them. we have a stand-alone bill that can be passed in the house, house 1297, it can be done. but as my friend from round rock has pointed out, our leadership, speaker boehner, has brought a c.r. for one week. he didn't want to do that. we know he didn't. but he was concerned about the military. and it funds all aspects of the military through the end of the year. and then we have this bill that if the senate is doing as they're indicating as dead on arrival, we aren't going to pick it up and put our ideas and pass it flew through the senate.

the evidence is clear, judge, it seems to me, the evidence is all in, they want a shut down. they think they win politically by forcing a shutdown and blaming republicans. not only the republicans in the house fault, but also clearly them playing games with our military, with the vital function of this country and isn't right. and i thank you for yielding and i do thank so much -- i know we have several of our critical key sponsors here on the house floor and i'm so grateful for the leadership. i mean, we're talking freshmen lmen and -- freshmen and been here. i appreciate you so much. mr. carter: as mr. gohmert says, those of us who sat in the courtroom for years, in my case, almost 21 years, you want to look at the evidence and see what the evidence shows and the

evidence shows first, how do we get to a shut downfor failing to fund the government. well, you start with last year, when the democrats were in charge of the house, senate and presidency, they passed no budget and not one single appropriations bill, although, i'm on the appropriations committee, they certainly could have, they just chose not to. they chose not to. they chose the date that they would have a c.r. go into the next term of congress when they already lost and knew how many of these wonderful people were going to be replacing them the next time they showed up in the house. they put this thing all the way to march, which they knew was going to be under a tremendous amount of pressure to get us to fund the government. we made diligent attempts to fund the government and didn't

last long enough for harry reid to say dead on arrival when it got to the senate. let's see. they didn't do their job or budget, they set up the c.r. deadline. we met the c.r. deadline with the way to fund the government with the rest of the year for all departments. and didn't come back with any alternatives with any substance and spending as usual under the obama budget. and now we are giving two extensions to try to talk and each time, dead silence, no comment. if there's a comment, it's to the press, but to us, they are treating us like a stepchild and they are wanting to shut down the government. we need to take care of our soldiers and troops. before we even get it over there

tomorrow, harry reid and the president have made a statement, dead on arrival and the president said i'll veto it. that is what he supposedly said in georgia. i didn't hear it, but i was told he said it. he said i will reject it. that's the bill that funds our troops. i think we have other great people. mr. gohmert: judge, would you yield for a question? mr. carter: yes. mr. gohmert: since it would do know good for a republican in the senate to take a c.r. and bring it to the floor of the senate or file is -- it, but we also know any democrat in the majority down there can do that and try to get over some democrats, judge, what does it tell you that not a single person in the majority has

bothered to usher forth and file a c.r. of any kind to respond or to take ours, modify it, what does it tell you? mr. carter: they are marching to the commands of the majority leader, harry reid. and unfortunately, we didn't get elected to march rough step. we got elected and senators included, to make decisions that are good for the american people. my friend from virginia, i'll recognize you for the amount of time you would like to consume. . >> thank you for your leadership in this topic an also represent i haves kingston -- mr. carter: we have nine minutes. >> nine minutes. as the son --

mr. wittman: as the proud father of a third generation marine, it's troubling to me we have to discuss how or if our men and women in uniform are going to be compensated. failure of leadership, mr. leader, has left us in this precarious position and it is deeply troubling to me we're having to address it tonight. the confusion that's out there. just today the white house said that military personnel would not be paid. now, mr. speaker, this is failed leadership. how could it possibly be that the message from our commander in chief is that it's very likely if we go -- if this shut -- mr. rigell: if this shutdown occurs that our men and women in uniform would not be compensated. a senior defense department official said the people would be paid for a week but not two weeks. a pentagon spokesman said the department had not issued direction to the services about implementing a shutdown and he

really skirted the question of how a shutdown would affect the pay of our service members. this lack of clarity is not only unnecessary, it's unconscionable. brave men and women, americans around the globe are putting their lives at risk, fighting for our freedom and way of life. i got back from a trip to afghanistan and it's just unbelievable to think that a young corporal over there would have to speak or communicate to his wife about whether he is going to get paid or not. our men and women in uniform deserve our unwavering support from this congress and if our military is not paid, mr. speaker, i believe that members of congress and the commander in chief should not be paid. not one nickel. my office gets calls every day from spouses of our military. they're concerned. and understandably so.

let's be clear on this, mr. speaker. the genesis of this crisis that we're in is because the democratic leadership last year had the presidency, had the senate, had the house and failed to pass a budget. not only was this with ail your in leader shi, i believe it's an abdication of the responsibility entrusted to them. here we are debating last year's budget and we have a climate of uncertainty and as an entrepreneur, i know it's holding back job creation. as a result we're operating under a continuing resolution which each and every service chief has said is hurting the readiness of our military. i truly believe that we're a nation at serious and increasing risk because of our failure to manage our finances properly. that's why i ran for this

office. i'm proud to be a republican tonight because we proposed a path to fiscal responsibility that would keep the government open. it's been pointed out, rightfully so, the senate has failed to mauve that pro-- on that proposal, preferring apparently to allow the government to close and not pay our men and women in uniform. that is not acceptable. we must achieve stability and funding. i stand ready to work with any member on the opposite side of the aisle here and i know my colleagues do as well. this is so important. we must do what is right. the senate must act. i truly believe that the house has met its responsibility starting with h.r. 1. we've worked every day, every day to resolve this. we must pass the defense appropriations bill for the sake of our troops and our national security and i encourage every american to let their senators and our

president know that they want our troops paid on time. i really thank the gentleman for this time. i appreciate it. i yield back. mr. carter: reclaiming my time, i yield the time left to the wonderful gentlelady from new york, ms. hayworth. ms. hayworth: i thank you for your leadership and dedication. ive the privilege of serving the 19th congressional district in new york and the u.s. military academy at west point is in our district. and we have sent, as we all know, thousands of young men and women to join and to sustain the long gray line. and their talents and their commitment are made to our nation in order to defend us

from threats, from without. we owe them that same dedication and commitment and sacrifice and discipline here in the congress, in the house, and in the senate. and our president owes it to them and to the children of america whose future is at risk from within. we were elected in that great wave in november, 2010, because the american people told us that we could no longer afford to continue on a path of enormous deficits and mounting debt. it is difficult to do what we are called on to do. that presumably is why the senate has so resisted the lead we have offered them with the passage of a continuing resolution to compensate for a budget that was never passed for this fiscal year by the

111th congress. it is difficult to say no to certain types of spending that have become the usual mode of behavior by the federal government. but that is what we are called on to do. and what we do pailles in comparison -- peals in comparison with what the -- pails in compareson with what the -- peals in comparison with what -- pales in comparison with what the men and women in the armed services do every day. in this small way work emust join together in the house and must be joined by the senate to pass this bill that will fund our troops through the end of fiscal year 2011 and will allow us the time that we need to bring everyone together, to bring the senate and the president on board so that they too will have that discipline

that they need so that we can do what's right for america's future. and so that we can get on to thinking as we must about the budget for 2012 and beyond. i thank you, judge carter, for your leadership in assuring that our troops are properly cared for an for your leadership in this enormous and crucial fight for our nation's fuge. mr. carter: thank you. i don't know how much time is left but i'll just -- our good friend from tennessee, congresswoman blackburn is here, i give her whatever time is left. mrs. black: i stand here tonight as a daughter, a wife and a mother of veterans and i'm an ardent supporter of our nation's military. these brave men and women can never be thanked enough for their service to our country. this congress must do

everything that we can to stand up for those who defend america. that is why i urge my colleagues to protect the military paychecks and to members of our armed forces and their families will receive their salaries on time. this is not an issue that we can play politics with and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who seek to use these paychecks as our military as part of their plan to force a government shutdown should absolutely be ashamed of themselves. military families have already sacrificed so much for this country. back in tennessee, there are families who are worried right now about whether their loved ones are safe overseas in iraq and afghanistan and other places even around the country. and they're praying for their safe return home. those military families should

not under any circumstances have to worry about when and where the next paycheck is coming from. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. carter: thank you and i apologize for the short time. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. garamendi: thank you very much, mr. speaker. we intend tonight to talk about the deficit, solutions to the deficit, where it came from and what can be done about it in the context of creating jobs here in america. but before we get into that, we just heard a whole hour of talk

that really is based upon a fallacious foundation. that is, it's just not correct. last year, in 2010, it was the republican senators that blocked every attempt to pass legislation by threatening to veto and denying the 60 votes necessary system of when it came time to do a budget, it was impossible to put a budget through the senate because of the republican blockade in the -- in the use of the filibuster. and similarly, when it came time to fund the government, that is to appropriate the money, the same thing happened. it was impossible to get the 60 votes out of he senate because of the republican blockade. everything we've heard over this last hour about the process that we're now under

way, the continuing resolutions, began with the blockade in the senate by the republicans as they continually threatened a filibuster. that's why we are where we are today. with regard to the funding of the military, let's understand that the democrats have always consistently voted to fund the military when it was a straight up and down vote. however, in the c.r., first c.r. that did have funding for the military, it also had extraordinary cuts that would create -- would destroy 700,000 jobs in the last six months of this fiscal year. march, april, maye, june, july, august, september, october. $7 -- 00,000 jobs lost. the democrats said, no way. no way are we going to throw

700,000 employed americans out work and we rejected that. but a clean c.r. for the funding of the military on and you'll have 100% vote. but when you cobble together the kinds of foolish cuts, unwarranted cuts, 700,000 lost jobs and then attach to it the military and expect support, you won't get it. the democrats want this government funded. and we fought for more than a year and a half to get the government funded. we were blocked along the way. now as the republicans put out these pieces of legislation, the continuing resolutions and attach to it totally unacceptable language and unacceptable cuts to the american people, not to the democrats but to the american people, then we find this gridlock. what we want to do really is

talk about jobs. joining me tonight are two wonderful legislators, one from the -- let's see, imported from detroit and another from the manufacturing capital of the world. but i want to start with an understanding of why we are where we are. i know my colleagues will help me on this. first of all, the democrats have been about creating jobs. from the stimulus to today. the g.o.p. majority has been in power for 14 weeks. zero, no, nada, nothing to create jobs. not one jobs bill. in fact, the only bill that they have put on that has anything to do with jobs is one that destroys 700,000 jobs. so keep this in mind, american public. 14 weeks of g.o.p. leadership in the house and not one piece of legislation that would

create a job, putting americans to work this year and next year. . that's a fact. now, another fact. where did the deficit come from? where did the deficit come from? in order to understand where wer we need to know where we've been. beginning wp ronald reagan, the budget was not balanced. ronald reagan at the end of his term, left for the american public, $1.4 trillion deficit in the years ahead. at the end of each year and therefore at the end of a president's term, the congressional budget office makes an estimate of what is going to happen over the next five to 10 years. and at the end of ronald reagan's term they said there would be a $1.4 trillion deficit

going forward. george walker bush followed reagan and at the end of his administration, the estimate by the nonpartisan congressional budget office is that there would be a 3 -- $3.3 trillion deficit going forward. that's the numbers provided by the congressional budget office, nonpartisan group. bill clinton came to office. established the pay-for program. established the balanced budget program. and at the end of his administration, it was projected going forward that there would be a $5.6 trillion surplus wiping out the american debt. that's what happened during the clinton administration. so that in the years beyond the

clinton administration, had the same policies gone forward, the american debt would have been wiped out. however, however, another gentleman was elected, george w. bush and in his first year in office, the bush tax cuts went into effect. the afghanistan war started and the deficit began to grow once again. so that in his second year, the second bush tax cuts were added. and the iraq war was started. never before in american's history, has a war been under way that was not paid for with tax increases. instead, the republicans, and george w. bush decided that they

would start not one war, but two wars and pay for it with borrowed money. the fourth piece was the unpaid-for medicaid drug benefit, which didn't even require that the federal government force the insurance companies to compete for drugs. the result was at the end -- oh, did i forget the great recession. you add the great recession to it so at the end of the george w. bush administration, the projection from the congressional budget office was that the deficit would grow by an additional $11.5 trillion. the george w. bush republican period created the great recession, two wars unpaid for, a major increase in the medicare

program and the result, the great recession and the great deficit. this is what obama faced the day he came into office. the greatest recession since the great depression and an $11.5 trillion deficit going forward. those are the facts. that's where we started this. now, what are we going to do about it? what are we going to do about this problem? the president has put forth a budget that would in eight years, significantly reduce the deficit so it wouldn't grow and allow us to pay the interest. not removing it. not paying it all off. neither do the republican proposals. but it would us in a position where it would not grow. it takes time to solve the huge

deficit problem that the george w. bush, the ronald reagan and bush, senior, put us into and we can do it. but we cannot do it unless we grow this economy and it's about growing the economy and creating jobs that we would like to talk about. so i'm going to turn to my colleague from ohio, betty sutton, who has been putting americans back to work for a long, long time and share with us now with this proposal you are putting forward. ms. sutton: i thank the gentleman and your leadership. you gave us a little bit of background that i think is really important when we talk about where this deficit came from and how it came to be. i just had a couple of other points that are significant, at the end of last year, we will remember that the same people who are now, you know, cutting

indiscriminately, cuts aimed at seniors, cuts aimed at middle class americans, cuts aimed at head starts and, you know, low-income housing, heating assistance and community development block grants that add to economic activities in our communities, those same folks, some of them were over there fighting to make sure that we had super tax cuts for billionaires, that we're also going to add to the deficit. then they turn around and say, hey, we have this horrible deficit. so now everyone has to sacrifice. but when everyone hears the words, everyone needs to sacrifice, but if you are in 95% of the population that controls very little of the wealth in this country, they mean you. that doesn't mean the top 5%

that control the wealth in this country. they are about protecting what they have and all about grabbing more power. it's very interesting when we talk about where the policies coming out of the republican house majority are these days, because all of the cuts seem to be targeted at the people back in the district where i live, hard-working, salt-of-of-the earth constituents who i am honored to serve. the one bill they put out there, hey, you don't have to take our word for it, the bill they put out there, puts 700,000 jobs more than at risk -- it's been determined by their own republican analyst, that it would be costing 700,000 jobs. and our economic recovery, which is so fragile is under threat.

if you look at a group of 300 economists, wrote a letter that the shortsighted budget cuts, human capital and infrastructure and next generation of scientific and technological advances would threaten economic competitiveness as well as recovery. the path that the republicans are on -- and we just saw the new budget proposal unveiled and called it a path to prosperity but it should be called the path to poverty, but the path they are on is not a good one. we know the answer, the answer to what ails our economy is we need to put the american people back to work. we need to have jobs that will create opportunities for the people that we are so honored to represent, that will keep our

communities running, that will have the revenue we need to pay for the firefighters, teachers, police officers, nurses, those public servants that make our world turn. and so everyone, at all levels of government, regardless of party, should be focused on priority one, getting americans back to work. and that's where we come in with what we need to be focused on and that is how do we make it in america? manufacturing matters. and so we are working in this house, as you know, congressman garamendi, to make sure we put forth an agenda on the democratic side of the aisle and we hope our republicans will start focusing on what will help the people that we serve. and that would be focusing on these jobs, giving people the opportunity, creating real value by making things in this

country. not only will we make the products, then we will give the chance to the american people to make it in america, and america will make it again. mr. garamendi: thank you very much for laying out the past history. our theme in the democratic caucus here in the house is one of making it in america. once again, going in to target, going down to the local automobile deller ship and finding -- dealerships and finding making it in america. america has had manufacturing strength. but we need to understand that in the last decade, we have seen the hallowing out of the american manufacturing industry. in 1999, there were 17,383,000

americans working in manufacturing. in the decade that followed, more than six million of those jobs were lost. we saw the hallowing out of american manufacturing. that's the strength. it also happens to be the middle class. so our theme is make it in america. and as you say, if america's going to make it, we must, once again, make it in america. manufacturing matters. let me put up here on the board why it matters to the american public. what's happened in the last decade has been a skewing of the economy, the great unshared prosperity of america. we look at the bottom fifth of the population. these are the poor. they have seen a delshes 200 --

$200 annual increase in their well-being. next fifth, 20% to 40%, they have seen just under a $10e,000. and as you go up, you look at the top 10%, $300,000. top 1% of americans, what's happened with them? their wealth has grown by over -- by over $5,978,870,000 000. waste happened as a result of the policy of the bush administration is a push to the wealthy. and the clamp down of the working class in america, the middle class in america is losing the race to wealth, losing it to the top 1%. let me put this another way.

perhaps some people you might recognize at the bottom, the poorest fifth, the folks that work for wal-mart, 11% of the wealth went to them. the second poorest, these are the teachers, the same thing, very little growth in their income. and as you get to the millionaires and billionaires, the donald trumps of the world, they have seen a 256%, 256% increase in their wealth. at the bottom, 11%. for the teachers, 18%, 20%. for manufacturing, maybe 32%. and here's where the money is, here's where the money is, it's the super wealthy, 256%.

and if you take a close look, america. take a close look at what was proposed yesterday by the republican caucus. yesterday, the republican caucus proposed to take this skewing of wealth, the unshared prosperity, and push even more of it to the super wealthy of america. it is unconscionable and that is what they propose to do with tax breaks for the wealthy, continuing on indefinitely, increasing the deficit by $1 trillion. $1 trillion increase because they want even more wealth to go to the super wealthy, at the same time they're cutting the benefits that the working men and women rely upon. what are those benefits? well, how about employment

opportunities. how about educational opportunities, all of those are cut. and taking money out of the economy so that 700,000 men and women would lose their job this year in the next nine months. that's the republican majority. the seniors of america, the republicans are proposing to end medicare as we know it. the privatization of medicare, giving every senior in this nation an $11,000 voucher so they can then go and negotiate with the greed of the health insurance companies. . if you want to live to be 65 and finally have a health insurance policy you can count

on, don't look to the republicans. because they intend to terminate medicare as we know it. and turn over the well-being, the health and indeed the life of every senior to the vagrancies, to the rapacious profit orientation of the health insurance industry, that's what's going to happen if the republicans get their way. we'll do everything we can to stop it. and we will also do everything we can to build the american middle class. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. garamendi: i would be delighted to. >> isn't it also accurate that at the same time they're cutting medicare and changing it -- ms. sutton: and removing the guarantee that seniors have known they'll have access to health care, isn't it true at

the same time they're continuing to protect the billions of dollars in subsidies to big oil companies and protect tax breaks that ship jobs overseas that have led in large part to the decline of american manufacturing? mr. gare ben -- mr. garamendi: precisely so. their budget proposal says that the oil companies who in the last 10 years have earned a profit of $947 billion, that would be $53 billion less than $1 trillion, in profits. nearly $1 trillion in profits. yet our republican colleagues say they need to continue to be subsidized by the american taxpayers. hello! what's that all about? you want to balance the budget, remove those subsidies from the oil companies and let them pay taxes. why should we be subtsdiesing the wealthiest industry in the

world? the oil industry. that's what they want to do. talk about tax breaks. good heavens. i want to turn now to our colleague from the great city of detroit, we love that advertisement on the super bowl, we now call hansen clark the imported from detroit representative. share with us your thoughts here. mr. clarke: thank you, congressman gare men tee. i'm born and raised in detroit, very proud of it, imported from detroit as you say and one reason why u.s. manufacturing has been so innovative is because we use the best research. u.s. manufacturing performs half of the research and development in the united states and it's been fantastic. let me give you an example. in detroit, the district that i represent, general motors corporation is now manufacturing one of the best electric powered vehicles

around, the chevy volt. the cost of the chevy volt has dropped. it's very affordable now. that's in large part because the department of energy's investment into research and development in the lithium ion battery. the cost of that battery has dropped down to just $8,000 apiece this car is not only a great car, saves you gas, it's a good riding vehicle but it'll be affordable. here's the problem. the problem is, is that many in the majority right now want to cut back on research and development. that's going to be so essential for us not only to build the best products to be sold here, but also so that we can compete overseas. what's disturbing is that for the first time since 2008, the u.s. level of investment in clean energy technology has now dropped from first place in the world. we used to be number one in the

world in clean energy technology research until recently. we have fallen now to number three. number three. behind china and germany. that's not acceptable. mr. gare men tee: would the gentleman yield for -- mr. garamendi: would the gentleman yield for a moment? mr. clarke: yes, sir. mr. garamendi: in h.r. 1, the republicans redeuce the research budget for energy research here in america, cutting out vital research at the department of energy, at the laboratories across this nation. and what are they thinking? i yield back to you. mr. clarke: you're right. this makes no sense at all. and i'll tell you what's disturbing is that the british national science academy predicted that if we go on this path that we're going on right now, which we're going to ask the american people to back us up because we've got to put more research and development dollars in building these great

manufacturing products, but if we don't do that, if we don't change, china could overtake us in scientific output in just a couple of years. that's not acceptable. we want to make sure that the best products are imported from detroit, not from china. i yield back. mr. clarke: thank you so very much. how correct you are in laying out this strategy of how we can move the american manufacturing industry. education, a well-educated work force, research on fundamental issues like energy systems, batteries, transportation, and then making those things in america. importing from detroit to american consumers and selling around the world. however, when the republicans put together a proposal such as h.r. 1, their continuing resolution that would cut 700,000 jobs out, it also cut

out the research budget for energy research, for battery research, for transportation research and in addition to that, research for health. the national institute of health budget was decimated. that's not good public policy. we need to make these fundamental investments and if the democratic strategy of making it in america is carried forward, detroit will prosster. -- will prosper and america will prosper. another part of our country in trouble for manufacturing but great manufacturing center of america is illinois. our representative from that great state is here to join us, january schakowsky. jan? ms. schakowsky: i'm happy to join you and i thank you for come do you think to the floor each week to make the point that we have choices in the united states of america, we can put our people back to work

and we can reduce our debt an deficit. but we don't have to do it on the backs of middle class americans an we certainly don't have to do it on the babs of our elderly. that's exactly what the budget proposal by our republican budget chairman paul ryan said, he said, you know, look, the country is breck and we've got to just show courage and we've got to cut that deficit. we agree with that. and the way that we think we ought to do it is by ending medicare as we know it. by apoll -- abolishing medicare. instead of that guaranteed benefit that all the older americans can aspire to you, can get when they're 65 years old, that persons with disabilities would get, they know it's there and i cannot imagine that there's not every single member of this house, republican or democrat, where people come in and say, i hope

i can make it until i'm of 5 and get on medicare because -- i'm 65 and get on medicare because i can't get insurance or i can't afford it right now or i have a pre-existing condition. he wants to do it on the backs of senior citizens. it's been said many times tonight that 700,000 jobs would be lost if h.r. 1, the top priority of the republicans, were to pass, that the cuts that it would make instead of spurring on jobs, creating jobs, putting the 15 million people that want to pay taxes, that's all they want is to go back to work and actually pay tax, that they would be their dream come true and it would cut our deficit. but you know what the american people are thinking? they're thinking, we aren't broke. maybe we are, but not everyone is broke in america. this is a sign that my staff

made before i introduced a bill with the idea supported by 81% of americans that it is time for millionaires and billion theirs to pay their fair share. 81% of americans. that means it's not just democrats. and it's not just republicans, it's independents and i believe that it's tea party people too. they know that they are not getting a fair shake and that the million fairs are. let me explain. did you explain the chart? what it says is from 1979 at that end, to 2005, this is the growth in income over certain income categories. and you can see way down at the end, there's a little bracket, even if you can't, you get the idea, there's a little sign town there that says, that the bottom 20% of americans over that period, almost 30 years, their income increased $200.

let's go to the other end. the top .1% of americans, their average income increased, this is increased, almost $6 million. their average income right now, their average income is $27 million. get this. the bottom 90% of americans, i was even shocked by this number, the average income is under $32,000 a year. top 1%, top .1%, $27 million, 90% of the rest of americans, less than $32,000. this is not good for our economy. and it is not good for our democracy. mr. garamendi: would you yield for a moment?

ms. schakowsky: yes. mr. garamendi: the republican budget proposal put out yesterday calls for a tax decrease for that 1%, from 35% to 25%. ms. schakowsky: just the people who need it. just the people who need a tax break. isn't that astonirning? that they should actually pay less. mr. gare men tee: we're talking about soup -- mr. garamendi: we're talking about super trickle down theory. ms. schakowsky: and the top tax bracket in the united states of america is for $375,000. so if you make $27 million or $375,000, you're paying the same tax rate. i said, let's make the tacks fair. i said, starting at $1 million per year, 45% tax rate. and it would ratchet up $10

million, $20 million, then $1 billion tax bracket. you know what? there are americans who have made $1 billion last year. the top 20 hedge fund managers, an average of over $1 billion a year. one guy made over $5 billion in one year. i'm saying those billionaires, that top tax bracket, 49% taxes. guess what, that's lower than the tax rates in all the reagan years. i'm under -- under -- i'm under ronald reagan's highest tax bracket. it's fair. this is not about punishment. it's not about revenge. it's certainly not about jealousy. it is about fairness in our tax system. and we would have plenty of money here. we wouldn't have to cut medicare. of course we wouldn't. we wouldn't have to cut medicaid, the poorest people off their insurance.

we could fund the job training programs to put people back to work. we could even fund infrastructure programs that put people on the job. or green energy programs that make america a leader in the world. we could do all those things. we are not broke as a people. so my fairness in taxation act, i hope people will sign on as co-sponsors, 81% of americans think it's a good idea, we have to have the courage to follow, listen to people out there, and follow. mr. garamendi: our republican colleagues have consistently said we ought to listen and apparently from all we know about tax policy, there's little or no support for reducing the taxes on the super wealthy, but rather go the other way. and wondering what they're thinking on the other side of the aisle as they continue to

skew to create the unshared prosperity by even reducing further the taxes on the super wealthy. ms. schakowsky: one of the things they say is we all have to sacrifice. shared sacrifice. nibble that. i think that's a good idea -- i believe in that. i think that's a good idea. but some people have been sacrificing for a long time. if you drew another line starting at the bottom left and going to the top right, of productivity increases in the united states, that line would shoot way up because we have the most productive workers in the world. productivity has soared. and yet where have the benefits gone for that? for more productive workers? right here. and it's been delivered and it's been based on policies that have been passed in the congress, a partnership between government that's been hand in hand with the wealthiest americans and the

rest of america. and you know what? the other thing is if you started up here and tracked union membership, you would find that line going straight down. when with workers at 62% of americans agree is a good thing have collective bargaining, they're able to help raise the middle class, raise the middle class instead of having a disappearing middle class which is what's happening now. mr. garamendi: and yet we're seeing across this nation a republican attack on unions. claiming that unions have -- that the great history of this nation is that the union movement, collective bargaining over these many, many detects, did in fact create the middle class. so that in the 1960's, was the period of time when the middle class of america was at its peak. it had the greatest distribution of wealth, the greatest share of the income went to the middle class, it was also the time when the union movement was the

strongest in america. since that time, through a variety of government al policy, we have seen a decline -- government al policy, we have seen -- governmental policies, we have seen a decline in the union movement and a decline in the middle class. we're going to build the middle class. this is about making it in america, this is about rebuilding the middle class. i want to now turn to our colleague from the great industrial, the once and future great industrial center of america, ohio, and share with us, you've got some specific proposals that you've put forward. i'd like to talk about them, i know that our congresslady from illinois and i do too so we have specific things that we're going to do to rebuild the middle class by making it in america. ms. sutton: i thank the gentleman and the gentlewoman for her making the case about the fundamental unfairness about what is going on with the proposals coming from the other side of the aisle. and i think that the point that the gentleman just made about the union movement in this

country helping to build the middle class and frankly leading us to a place where we had a strong middle class in this country, you know, is that middle class that makes america so great, the people have a chance to aspire to that american dream. and so when you stand on the floor, you come here as we do, and you see attack after attack on those middle class families, from attacks on prevailing wage payments that are just living wages that are going to those folks who work in our trades and we see those come up over and over again, at the same time that those on the other side of the aisle are protecting that huge income disparity. it's really, really hard to take, i know for us over here, and it's hard for the people that i represent who work hard for a living and are just looking for a chance to take care of their families and make their way. we also see those attacks on

collective bargaining, to silence workers, to take away rights, to even have a voice at the table, to be part of the solution which they have been and will continue to be. you know, those power grabs, those attempts to disempower ordinary american, we have to fight against. and there is a better way and this make it in america agenda offers us that better way. manufacturing we all know is a multiplier in terms of jobs. we know that for every manufacturing job it has a multiplier affect of four more jobs and in some industries, the auto industry, it's as high as 10 additional jobs. we know that where people manufacture, if we manufacture in america, we do research and development in america. we maintain our capacity to be strong as a nation, both economically as well as in our sense of national security. what happens if we can't make it in america? so here we are, we have a number

of proposals, we know that we need a national manufacturing strategy in this country, democrats are committed to making sure that we have one. another area that we need to work on, that i think that the american people -- honestly i think that they expect this and i'm hoping that our friends across the aisle will see fit to join us in the effort to make sure that when taxpayer money is used to build our infrastructure, which in and of itself puts people to work, we will use that taxpayer money to buy american iron and steel and manufactured goods and get that multiplier effect as we build our streets and our roads and our bridges and our sewer systems and our water systems and our alternative energy products. mr. garamendi: could you yield for a moment? ms. sutton: i will yield to the gentleman. mr. garamendi: there's a piece of legislation that someone introduced that said, don't let american jobs go drown the --

down the drain. do you know who that was? ms. sutton: absolutely. i introduced that legislation. mr. garamendi: i thought you did. ms. sutton: i thank the gentleman for bringing it up and it is called keep american jobs from going down the drain act and what it does is it's very simple, it says that as we do what we need to do in this country to rebuild our infrastructure, our water and sewer systems, that we will make sure we do it using american iron and steel and manufactured goods because that puts the american people back to work. other countries have similar procurement policies and it's way past time that this country also do what it can to keep these jobs right here in ohio, right here in america. mr. garamendi: well, i love the title, but even more so i love the purpose of your legislation. using our tax dollars to build the infrastructure, the water, the sanitation systems that

every city, every community needs, and using that money to buy americanmade pumps and pipes and fittings and valves and all the rest of the things that go into those kinds of systems. it's not the only place where american taxpayers' money can be used. let me give you a couple of examples and this is my pieces of legislation that deal with a similar theme, we all pay gasoline tax. and a diesel tax. 18.5 cents on the federal side and 25 cents for diesel on the federal side. where's that money go? it goes to build our streets, highways and buy our buses and trains. we need a firm policy that says if it is american taxpayer money it's going to be used to buy american-made buses, trains, american-made steel, concrete, we need to use our tax money to build the american economy so

that we are making those things in america. i'm going to give you the poster child for the wrong policy. state of california. going to rebuild the san francisco oakland bay bridge, a multibillion-dollar project. bids went out. an american contractor came in with two bids. one bid was for steel in america and the other bid was for steel in -- steel made in china. the chinese steel was 10% cheaper. the state of california, wrongheaded, big mistake, went out and said, we're going to save 10%. turns out the chinese steel was defective, the welds were defective, the bridge was delayed, the 10% disappeared, the 10% was added. the american jobs were lost. never, ever, ever again should that happen in america. if it's american taxpayer money then by golly the american-made products. i love it. don't let american jobs go down the drain, make sure that we are making it in america. one more thing and then i want to turn to our minority leader,

our whip, to talk about make it in america. we also, we also use american taxpayer dollars to build the solar systems and the wind turbine systems in america. are they made in america? they ought to be. there are american manufacturers that make wind turbines and make solar. once again, our taxpayer money, is it going to be used to buy solar panels from china? wind turbines from europe? is it going to be used to buy american-made wind turbines and american-made solar panels? we must pass legislation and it ought to be democrat and republican alike that said finally it's going to be american-made, we're going to make it in america so that americans can make it. let me now turn to steny hoyer, our esteemed leader, the whip of the democratic caucus.

mr. hoyer. mr. hoyer: mr. garamendi, i thank you not only for your yielding, but more importantly for the extraordinary time you have invested in educating all the members of this house, on both sides of the aisle, in a what can truly be perceived, i think, as a absolutely nonpartisan, bipartisan pro-american agenda that says we ought to make it in america. and if we do we're going to make it in america, we're going to succeed in america. you've got our logo up there, manufacturing matters. i want to congratulate you and i want to congratulate ms. sutton from ohio, who has been such an extraordinary advocate, her legislation in many respects took the automobile industry and put it back on track. and that was an thax saved literally hundreds -- an action that literally saved hundreds of

thousands of jobs. thousands of jobs in the automobile industry, but all the jobs that are related to the automobile industry. and i congratulate betty sutton for the leadership she showed and that legislation of course was passed in a bipartisan fashion. not a partisan divide on that issue. and, mr. garamendi has been not only educating the members of this house and as the american public watches the proceedings in this house, educating them as well. i go all over america and talk to groups and there is not a group that i've talked to, no matter how liberal, how conservative, whether it's a democratic group, a nonpartisan group, anywhere in this country, and i've talked to a number of the heads of major corporations and i've talked to a lot of heads of small corporations, two 200, 300, 400 members.

and all of them are appreciative of the fact that we have focused the congress of the united states and the administration and america on the importance of making things in america. and as betty sutton, as i walked on the floor, was talking about, the kinds of jobs that we create in manufacturing, which have on average a 22% higher salary, that middle income, middle class workers, working americans can have the kind of quality of life that they deserve. and when you seeed for bringing jobs back to america, you see whirlpool bringing jobs back to america, you see other corporations bringing jobs back to america. why are they bringing them back to america? because they are finding out that they get better quality and higher productivity. the gentleman from california mentioned the steel and the bridge that's being built.

we make the best steel in america. i was visiting the president of u.s. steel in pittsburgh, extraordinary technology, and we are the most productive producer of steel now. we frankly in the 19 oose sort of -- in the 1950's sort of rushed in and in the 1960's and 1970's, the japanese and koreans built new plants and overtook us in technology. but it wasn't because we couldn't compete, it's that we weren't competing. what -- american workers can compete with anybody in the world. and we're prepared to do so and this congress, hopefully, is going to give them the incentives and the tools to do that. so i wanted to come on the floor and join you as i have in evenings past to thank thank -- to thank you because i believe this agenda, if it's known to our republican colleagues fully and our democratic colleagues, but much more importantly, to

the american people, it's an agenda that i have found has the support of eight to nine of every americans who shake their head and say, yes, that's the deal. i don't mean that the one or 10% are against it, it's just that about 85% say, yes, that's what we need to do. america can compete, america can be again the center of manufacturing and growth and the creation of jobs, we know that we've lost some eight million jobs over the last few years, three or four years. we know that americans are struggling to find employment. well, if we want to find employment for them, we need to create jobs for them. we need to focus on creating jobs and i'm hopeful as we move on in the coming months that we will in fact start focusing on jobs. on job creation.

we've created, as you know, 1 3/4 private sector jobs but that's not enough. it's progress, but it's not enough. and so i congratulate the gentleman and thank him for his leadership and i thank ms. sutton for hers as well. two giants in focusing on an agenda that we call make it in america. . mr. garamendi: your kind words are appreciated. and your theme, make it in america, and the value you have put into this. i want to turn back to our colleague from ohio. we have about seven minutes, i believe. and we are going to wrap this thing up. take three of those -- mr. hoyer, thank you very much. ms. sutton, if you would carry on. ms. sutton: i thank the gentleman. you know, again, this make it in america agenda, it really is something that we believe that

whether you are republican or democrat, that everybody can embrace. and frankly, everybody needs to embrace. we saw what happened when we had our economy relying on the financial sector, where you had a few people moving money around and it wasn't real value that was being created. and when the bubble burst, we had a problem. you take something of lesser value and turn it into something of greater value. that is something we can rely on. one of the things we have to do is we have to have a national manufacturing strategy. and in that national manufacturing strategy, like on the agenda, make it in america agenda, we need to look at a number of things and how they all work together so they will support u.s. manufacturing and u.s. workers. and why do we need a

manufacturing strategy? well, it's kind of obvious, but i do think it's worth noting, others have national manufacturing strategies. germany has one. south korea has one. in fact, every other industrialized nation has a network of currency, trade, skills policies that promotes manufacturing. right here in the house, we encourage our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to pro meet a national manufacturing strategy that deals with trade policies that are fair and there will be trade that no longer leave our workers and our businesses at an unfair disadvantage, where others will be forced to play by the rules in the same way that our manufacturers and our workers play by the rules, a program that also promotes tax policies

that encourage manufacturing in this country and stops the outsourcing of jobs overseas, which we have seen take place for decades now, that will be smart with respect to our energy policies, our labor policies. we shouldn't be attacking workers. workers aren't the ones who drove our economy off the cliff. so the whole issue of disproportionate shared sacrifice, just like we saw the diss proportionate wealth in this country with the help of the policies that were promoted by the last republican administration, we need education policies as a part of that national manufacturing sfrat guy to promote a work force that will keep us competitive and on top, policies that protect intellectual property and research and development right here, because

where you have research and development, you have manufacturing and vice versa and we need to strengthen and rebuild this country by investing in our infrastructure. it puts people to work and it is what we need to do. smart cuts make sense, but so do smart investments in and infrastructure is the right to go. mr. garamendi: i'm going to pick up on the issues you have raised. these are the essential elements of a manufacturing strategy. if we are going to make it in america, we need to make things in america. and these are the essential things. you talked about trade policies. we can't give it all away and just expect to be importerers of products made elsewhere. we need good products to be competitive. we speak specifically here of china. a lot of issues involved in

china currency and goes on and on, but this is one of the areas where we must stand firmly or else we will lose it because somebody else is going to make it and ship it here. unfairly. taxes, it needs to encourage manufacturing. let me give two examples that were part of the democratic agenda and now in law. last year, as part of our program, we provided a tax break for american manufacturers who invested in capital equipment. we said don't worry about depreciation. you invest in capital equipment and you can write off against your taxes in one year, that investment. that's a tax policy. a second tax policy we said, it's not right for american corporations to get a tax breaks when they do offshore jobs.

no more. both of these policies, our republican colleagues refused to join us. presumably, they want to continue giving corporation tax breaks to corporations when they send jobs offshores. energy, crucial. crucial. we cannot any longer put our future to risk on international oil markets. we are seeing it today, the extraordinary rise in the cost of gasoline and diesel. energy policy, advanced biofuels, conservation, electric cars, all of those things. labor, you talked about labor. again, it was the labor movement that created the middle class in america by standing firm and saying, the workers of america need to share in the great wealth of america. we have seen the decline of labor and we have seen the equal decline of the middle class.

they go together. labor, fair labor rules, what's going on in the midwest, wisconsin, your state of ohio, other states, is wrong. the labor movement and collective bargaining is crucial to america's middle class, but that gives the foundation. education policy, what are our republican colleagues thinking about when they cut education funding. we need a well educated work force and can't do it on the cheap. it requires an investment. i used intellectual property here and we could have used research. research creates new products. in those new products where the great profits are and we must protect the research. our republican colleagues, why are you reducing the research budget for america? why are you doing that, when in fact that is where future

industries come from? don't cut there. and finally, infrastructure, the foundation upon which everything moves, including -- we used to think of as roads, streets, water systems, yes, but it's the flull infrastructure, -- intellectual infrastructure. and if we fail to invest. and by the way, in terms of the internet hey way, access to the internet, the united states falls behind virtually every other industrialized country in the world and in many cases, behind developing countries. this is a make it in america strategy. these are the elements. trade policy, tax policy, energy policy, labor policy, education, research, intellectual property and infrastructure. this is the democratic agenda.

this is what we are putting forth and this is what we will fight for, because this is how you build the american middle class, by making it in america. i think our time is up. i want to thank our colleagues, ms. sutton and our minority leader -- minority whip, you were our majority leader once -- months ago and the make it in america is the american solution. to our economy and to our economic growth and rebuilding the great american middle class. i thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield back the remaining seconds of my time. the chair: the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from snuge, mr. lance, for 17

minutes. mr. lance: i rise this evening in a very sad moment for the people of the state of new jersey. and i want to thank congressman pallone for joining with me this evening as well as other members of the house as we pay tribute to our colleague, john adler, who served in this house in the last congress, extremely close personal friend of mine. he and i having served 17 years ago together in the new jersey legislature. mr. speaker, before i deliver my remarks, we are honored this evening to be joined by the minority whip, the former majority leader who certainly knew congressman adler well and i yield time to the distinguished minority leader, mr. hoyer. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend for yielding,. i was here on the floor and went

over to say hello to my dear friend and he indicated that this special order was being taken for john adler. john adler died too young. john adler contributed extraordinarily to his family, to his community and to his state and to his nation. he served here too short a time. he was full of energy and of ideas of intellect and integrity. and he became a good friend in a short period of time. and i counted him as one of the assets of this congress. not a democratic asset or a republican asset, but someone who cared about his country and who wanted to see it adopt policies that were productive for its people. and it is appropriate that we remember this too short a life that notwithstanding its

breffity was filled with great productivity, service and commitment. and i appreciate the fact that members of the new jersey delegation have allowed me to join them, mr. speaker, in paying tribute to this great american. and i want to say his family -- i called shelley the other day and didn't get her but left a message, four children are missing their father tonight, a loving wife, whom i got to know as well, missing her husband. and while our loss is certainly not as personal or as keen as their loss, we share that loss in a very real sense, not only have we lost an american public servant, we have lost a friend and a colleague. and for that, we will say a prayer for his family.

and we will be there for his family whenever they need us. and so i thank the gentleman from new jersey, my friend, mr. lance, for giving me this time to join him and mr. pallone and mr. holt in paying tribute to this wonderful human being, whom we had the privilege of serving with for too brief a time. and i yield back. mr. lance: thank you very much, mr. hoyer. mr. speaker, i have known john adler for 20 years. he entered the new jersey state senate in january, 1992. having been the only democratic candidate to win an open seat that year, defeating an incumbent in what was not a strong year for the democratic party, his party. it was a strong year for my party, republican party.

he came in as a phenomenon. he was a very young man. he was born in 1959. he would have been 32 years old when he became a member of the state senate. i had been elected to an unexpired term in the general assembly the year before and i served in the 1990's in the general assembly, lower house of our legislature and he served continually in our upper house in our state senate, having been elected in 1991 and then re-elected in 1993, 1997, 2001, 2003, 2007. he rose to a position of prominence in the new jersey senate. he eventually chaired the state senate judiciary committee, which is an extremely important responsibility in the structure of our government in new jersey. . the year before he was

elected to the state senate he run as an underdog in a congressional race and although he did not win that race, i think that many took note of its candidacy and i think that propelled him into our state senate. i moved from the lower house of the new jersey legislature to the state senate in the election of 2001 when we became direct colleagues and we worked together on many different issues. and he always worked in a collegial and extremely competent fashion. indeed we sat next to each other for a period of time of our service in the state senate, divided only by the center aisle. and to those who know our state capitol in trenton, the state senate chamber is a very small room, it was designed originally for 21 members, one state

senator from each of our 21 counties and when the state is not cincinnati was increased in population in the 196s to, based upon the principle of one person, one vote, to 40 members it became a place where it's really quite overcrowded. and so we really sat extremely close to each other in this small chamber, the state senate. john adler's career in the legislature was one of distinction. for example, prohibiting smoking in indoor public places and workplaces. he also sponsored an act promoting lower vehicle emissions and an antipredatory lending act to protect consumers from unfair credit practices. and based on that and many other accomplishments, when he came here he was appointed to the financial services committee, the committee to which i was appointed as well and so we became colleagues not only here in this chamber, the house of representatives, the people's

house across the united states, but we became colleagues on the financial services committee. john was not raised in circumstances of affluence. he lost his father when he was a young man and for him and his mother it was a struggle. and yet despite that he went to harvard, graduated from harvard college in 1981 and from harvard law school in 1984. he was an excellent student. and at harvard he met the person who became his wife, shelley, someone whom i know and who is known by my wife, hidey, and we consider ourselves to be friends with the entire adler family. and together john and shelly brought into this world -- shelley brought into this world four wonderful sons, jeff, alex,

andrew and olver -- oliver. all of whom i know. jeff is at harvard at the moment, alex is at cornell and they have two younger brothers. and tonight, on this sad day, the day when john's funeral took place, at tell am in cherry hill d at temple in cherry hill, we remember prayerfully his wife, shelly, and their beautiful sons, jeff, alex, andrew and oliver. in 2008 there were two open seats in the house of representatives in new jersey, due to retirements, jim saxton and district three, mike ferguson in district seven, and john succeeded jim saxton as i had the honor of succeeding mike ferguson. so we were the only freshmen in

the class of 2008 from new jersey and i think that we shared that bond as of course every member of a freshmen class shares a particular and special bond. certainly it is exciting for someone to move from a state legislative chamber here to the house of representatives and i think we shared that excitement, for example when we with went together to the harvard seminar that took place for new members and of course the orientation that takes place here and when with we would bump into each other in the hall here during orientation, sometimes we thought, what were we doing here? an exciting time for both of us. john adler was a person of

enormous wit, a very dry and subtle and sophisticated wit. and it really pierced the veil of much of what occurs in public life and in political life, where in so many instances we take ourselves too seriously. that was not congressman adler. he has been involved over the course of his life in many different charitable activities, he served on the cherry hill township council before he went to the state legislature. the boards of the camden county chapter of the american red cross, the food bank of south jersey, virtue of west jersey health and hospital foundation, the camden county advisory board on children. and certainly his respect for the political process is

something that we should all recall, especially those of white house had the honor of serving with him in trenton and in washington. i believe that those who serve in public life do so out of a sense of a responsibility. john adler could have made a great fortune in the practice of law, given his native intelligence, given his academic training, given his ability as a speaker. he chose to be involved in public life, in cherry hill, a great suburban community in camden county, in southern new jersey, in the state legislature where he was very much involved in making sure that the judges who were appointed to office in new jersey were men and women of ability. we have a system in new jersey,

mr. speaker, where our judges are appointed, not elected, appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state senate and as chairman of the state senate judiciary committee, john was intimately involved in that. the district he served was an interesting district. the only camden county community in the district is his hometown of cherry hill. and he served vast portions of neighboring counties, burlington county and ocean county. to those not familiar with the geography of the state of new jersey, places in ocean county are among the most beautiful beaches anywhere, not only in this country, but in the entire world. and i know he had a commitment to protecting our environment. john adler's life was ended by a bacterial infection in his heart. at age 51.

his father had died in his late 40's. also based upon a heart condition. so perhaps john adler had a weakened heart. but he had a very strong heart in his views on public policy, in his views on helping the people whom he represented, first in the municipal governing body, for many distinguished years in our state senate and in the 111th congress where he was my colleague and my friend and where we two alone were the freshmen from the state of new jersey. i'm pleased to yield to congressman holt. mr. holt: madam speaker, i thank

the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lance, and my other colleague from new jersey, mr. pallone, for setting aside this time. too young, too soon, not fair, not ex publicble in a larger sense -- ex publicble in larger sense, it's with great sadness that we come to the floor tonight to honor the life of a fine colleague and a friend, a dedicated public servant to the state of new jersey, john adler. john was dedicated to the service of the people of new jersey. his devotion to new jersey led him to run for and win a congressional seat in 2008, as you heard from our colleague, mr. lance. and while john ultimately was not returned to this body for this session of congress, his legacy of public service will

indeed live on. no doubt wie have continued to find ways to improve the lives of new jerseyans. sharing not only a state but also a hallway and along with office building here with john, i had the opportunity to get to know him fairly well. he was a wonderful colleague, i will miss, as we all will, his cheerful demeanor and his wonderful sense of humor that he brought to all of his work. a sense of humor, a good spirit in good times and bad. and i'll miss his wisdom and his sharp political insight and his policy knowledge. today in a memorial, in his funeral in new jersey, there were several comments made and i'd like to read a few.

his law school roommate and best man commented that john adler really did believe that worrying was just a waste of time. he believed that any setback was an opportunity for something good to happen. friends remembered that after he had been defeated but congress was still in session for another two months he continued diligently to work here in congress. as they said, he wanted to make sure that he made it to all of the caucus meetings on time, he wanted to continue to make the right votes for the people of new jersey. his brother-in-law commented

that playing knowledge games against john was like playing against google. he recalled john's near brush with jeopardy fame that fizzled after the former congressman paid out of his own pocket to fly for a taping for this television program. he made it to the makeup room and one of the functionaries asked in a formal sense whether john knew anyone who worked for abc. john said, well, yes, he thought one of his law school classmates had taken a job with a station. and the producers said that was it. he couldn't participate. said his brother-in-law, you mean, you flew all the way out to california on your own dime? why on earth would you tell them that? and john replied, because i

didn't want to lie. shelley, john's wife, is an accomplished lovell person and there's every indication that their sons are as bright and public spirited as their parents. this is a real loss for many of us as well as for the people of new jersey. i ask that the members of the house join me in extending our sympathy and condolences to john's family and friends and his many admirers. i thank the gentleman for the time and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lance: thank you, thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, for 17 minutes. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. and i want to continue making this tribute and joining my colleague, congressman lance,

and congressman holt, in this tribute this evening to john adler, a good friend and one of our colleagues. i don't want to repeat some of the things that my colleagues have already said, but i'd like to talk a little bit about some instances about my own life that also involve john. i think mr. lance mentioned how difficult his political life was in the sense that he was always running in areas that were primarily or historically republican. he was when elected to the state senate back in the early 1990's he won in an upset against an incumbent and of course when he ran for the congressional seat which adjoins mine in the south, in ocean county, he was very much running against the odds. that seat had been held by congressman saxton who is also a good friend for many years, that

was republican as far back as anyone can remember, and he still won. i think he had 52% of the vote. . and he always faced challenges like that. his father died of a heart condition, i think at 47 years old. and john, i don't know if he was in high school at the time. but he would talk about growing up and having to depend on a social security benefit and he was able to relate to people because of his upbringing, those who were struggling and those who had a hard time because maybe they lost a father or didn't have a parent or grew up in circumstances where they didn't have much money. and i think the energy and the willingness to always take on the fight very much characterized john. and as was mentioned, he was one

of the smartest people i ever met. i remember on another occasion, when we were at a campaign event, and i was introducing him, and i mentioned that he graduated undergraduate from harvard university and on to harvard law school and how impressed i was with that. and after the event was over, he said, frank, don't mention that i went to harvard. he said i have to be humble and that doesn't indicate any humility if you mentioned harvard. not that he wasn't proud of harvard, but he wanted to relate to the average person, middle-class person, because that was his upbringing, and that was what he was all about and why he wanted to come to congress. as mr. lance mentioned, anybody who graduates from harvard

undergraduate and law school, they could make money and do well, but he decided he wanted to go into politics, he wanted to help people. and even if it meant he had to work in a district and raise money and campaign hard, he was determined to do that because he believed that that is what life is all about, giving back to the public and to his country. i wanted to just mention a couple of other things that i thought were kivende of interesting. john would talk about his family. i don't know how long it takes to go back and forth to where he lived in cherry hill, a couple hours or maybe more, probably, but he was going back as much as possible, in order to make sure that he was able to help his family and not spend a lot of money. he would spend the night in his office because he wanted to make

sure that he had enough money to pay for his family. he always talked about his kids. he talked about their education. he was proud of the fact where they were going to college and talked to me many times about them and their education and wanted to go back home so he could go to an athletic event with them or just be with them and his wife shelley. the one thing that everyone comments about is not only john's humility, but also his sense of humor. i have to tell you that many times i would come down on the floor and sometimes i would remember him in that set of chairs or standing up in that part of the house floor and i would always come up to him and ask him if he wanted to do a one-minute special order. i was r was always nagging him

to do different things and sometimes he would do different things and sometimes he wouldn't. he would always tell a joke. after a long day here in the house of representatives, that's what you would need. he would make you laugh with his witt and sense of humor. it was a very special thing. i'm not sure i could describe it well. also on the campaign trail, john runion, his successor was here, and you couldn't help when you saw john adler and john together. john is this huge guy, football guy, and john adler was so slight. he always exercised. and the contrast between them was so of interesting and john would poke fun at that as well, the fact that he was a slight guy and john was a big guy and

football player. i heard mr. lance talk about ocean county and john representing ocean county and i can't help but mention one aspect of that and that is the fact that when he was first running in ocean county, because i used to represent it at one time, he would remark to me how wonderful the beaches were and he was very concerned to preserve the quality of the beaches, the quality of the ocean and also protect the industries that used it, particularly the fishing industry, recreational fishing alliance was supportive of john because he was concerned about the fishing industry. he felt that it was historically part of ocean county and part of new jersey going back to colonial times and he had a special role to play in trying to protect the agency. they appreciated it.

fishermen, they can kind of see if you are on their side and if you are supportive of them and understand their concerns and they understood that john did and they appreciated all the help that he gave them. i know our time is running out, so i did want to first recognize my colleague, mr. pascrell, and then after that, i wanted to read a statement from former governor john corzine, into the record because he asked that i do that this evening. at this point, i yield to my colleague, mr. pascrell. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm honored to be on the floor with two great congressmen, congressman pallone and

congressman lance. three of us served in of the new jersey legislature. john adler was a great new jersey senator. he was everything but a harvard man. in other words, he didn't act like a harvard man. you could connect with him. he was a human being, above everything else. he was tenacious on the campaign trail, but more valuable as a public servant. he took what he did very seriously. he was sincere, very hard working, he did his homework before each vote. he would never allow anyone to lead him by the nose to vote, very independent their, not unlike pallone and lance. not a trenton guy, not a

washington guy. came here to do a job. and i could not believe when i heard the news, a 51-year-old young man, compared to me, he's a young man. he had so much to give and he gave it. and he really loved the public whom he served. he will be greatly missed by democrats and republicans on this floor. to his wife shelley and four beautiful sons, jeff, alex, andrew and oliver, you have friends here. this is by no means the end. so growing up in haddenfield and coming to washington, it was no different to john adler. he truly loved his fellow man. he truly did what he was supposed to do here on his mission, folks voted him here.

even when things didn't go well in the last election, he rose above. he was a winner in every sense of the word. god bless him. god bless our beautiful state. god bless the best country in the world. we remember john adler this evening with fond memory. thank you, frank. mr. pallone: thank you, my colleague. i mentioned, mr. speaker, that former governor corzine, who worked with john adler for many years on judicial and law enforcement issues, adler served in the state senate as chairman of the judiciary committee and corzine was governor at the time, he asked that i read this statement on the passing of the passing of john adler. he was a dedicated public servant whose witt, intell

against and drive was in the new jersey state house and nation capital. congressman adler committed himself to of the nobel idea that our government can be a force of good in the lives of so many citizens. we owe a debt of grattude to shelley who shared her husband's lives. his legacy is found in four wonderful boys who undoubtedly entheir communities with compassion and commitment with the greater good. while we mourn john's passing, may we also celebrate him while remembering our own lives are dwiped by those moments when we decide to stop and help someone else. those are the words of former governor corzine. i know that congressman holt before mentioned some of the statements that were made by friends and relatives at john

adler's funeral in cherry hill. i would like to take a couple of excerpts here as i know we only have a few minutes left that i would like to enter into the record, some parts of the narrative of the funeral that are mentioned in new jersey.com. it starts out by saying, they came wednesday to honor the memory of john adler, a self-manmade, a man of law, a family man and man of the people. the rabbi said, john died too soon too young surrounded by his family and circle of friends, but he died knowing he used his intell against and skills to help people and make a difference. another rabbi spoke of his humble leadership, reading a passage, quote, it is not the position that honors the man but

the man who has honored the position. he saw himself as a public servant. the rabbi recalled the particular moment that described john when the harvard school politician would exit the stage ignoring the steps attached to the side and he would bound off the front onto the people's floor. two of his sons spoke at the funeral. andrew recalled how much his father would get from doing mundane family things, soccer games and yelling things onto the field. i will always miss him, but he was always proud of the ones he loved. and lastly, mr. speaker, the rabbi concluded, the ceremony with a poem that ends and i quote, perhaps my time seemed all too brief, don't length then it with grieve, lift up your hearts and share with me, god

wanted me now, he set me free. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey for a motion. mr. lance: thank you, mr. speaker. i move the adjournment of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is

c-span, washington your way. a public service created by america's cable companies. >> republicans and democrats are in the middle of budget talks in an effort to avoid a government shutdown that would happen on midnight on friday. yesterday, republican leaders discussed the negotiations with capitol hill reporters. this is 10 minutes. >> it has been 46 days since

house republicans passed a bill to keep the government running. the president of the united states has just said "the least we can do is pass a budget." we would remind the president, again, house republicans have passed a bill to keep the government open and put the nation on the fiscally sustainable path. we stand here today united with the path to prosperity budget introduced by paul ryan. the nation has an opportunity to be off the bat the decline and on the path to prosperity. with the republican budget, will provide fundamental tax reform and we will provide the nation in a fiscally sustainable past to get the confidence of job creators to go out and wrote and invest and create new jobs in america. that is what we are doing today.

we have not seen anything but protection of the status quo, borrowing 42 cents on the dollar, most of it from the chinese. that is unacceptable. >> i have to tell you, i like the president personally. we get along well. but the president is not leading. he did not lead on last year partly budget and he clearly is not the on this year's budget. the democratic majority last year -- supermajorities in the house and senate. they at the white house. they cannot even agree on the budget after the election. in december, they punted until this month. when you look at the fact that the president introduced a bill to put a get a commission together a year ago -- while i

do not agree with everything is dead commission put forward, these people worked hard. they had some good ideas. the president used nine of his own death deficit reduction commission ideas in his own budget. here we are trying to clean up last year's mass. our goal is real clear. we are going to pay for the largest spending cuts we get any policy writers attached to them because we believe that cutting spending least to a better environment for job creation. we are continuing to have conversations with our colleagues in the senate. i hope it will continue to go well. but the government is due to shut down tomorrow. we are going to be prepared to move forward with our funding bill that will find our troops and keep the government open for another week and cut $12 billion in spending. i think this is the responsible thing to do for the united states congress. i hope the senate will pass it

and the president will sign it into law. >> obviously these are very serious times for this country. as we know, 14 trillion dollars in debt is no light matter -- $14 trillion in debt is no light matter. we care about people who are out there trying to find a job. we care about people who are trying to figure out how they get to the end of the not trying to pay the bills. that is why we are doing what we are doing. we have to solve the debt crisis in this country. we have got to demonstrate some responsibility here in washington said this economy can get going again. as we all know, paul ryan is marking up the budget as we speak. we have put forward a plan that, in fact, does retire the debt over time and does so without raising taxes. we have seen nothing out of the

president as far as a vision for where he was to take this country. in fact, in the senate, we know from the leader of their that he does not accept there is a fiscal crisis in this country. we believe that we have to act to do something to make sure that the american economy recovers. we have put forward plans. we understand america is broke. my question is, mr. president, are you going to help us fix it? >> it has been said that past behavior is the best indication of future behavior. we look at when the democrats were in the majority and never produced a budget. republicans came into power and produced one that to keep all the way to the end of the year. 46 days. after we first extended for the first two weeks, the president got engaged and set the vice

president al. fees that one day and left for two weeks. now we are at another deadline. i think this election was a different election. this election was about change. it was more than just change. it was the cultural change of washington. they expect things to be fact based and actually solve problems. think for one minute or only imagine what the future could be if the debt was taken away? what did you spend that interest money on? what did you invest in for america? we have imagined what it can be and we are going to fight for it. we asked people to do the job they are supposed to do. if the senate could have taken the last 46 days and pass something, we would be in a different position. we ask the senate to change their past behavior and changed

their actions america can grow. >> there is not a single house republican that was to shut down the government. we had been doing everything we can to avoid it. just a numbers to prove it. 46 -- that is the number of days ago we passed hr-1. 0 -- that is the port the senate has done of the budget. $90,000 -- that is the debt projected over the next 10 years. house republicans are committed to bringing our fiscal house in order. we have taken the steps. we passed a budget and of taking them back to the pre bailout, pre stimulus levels. we are committed to getting the fiscal house in order. we ask the senate to take the action necessary to allow us to move forward. >> american people in november spoke clearly. but what serious answers to serious problems the country

faces. the republican majority that took over in january has presented this time again. it is time to get on with the big issues. we are going to make sure our troops are paid. we have to cut spending. that is what the american people said. they do not want these deficits passed on to the next generation. it is time for the senate to get serious so we can get this resolved and move on to the big issues. >> questions? >> can you give us a little bit more information about the conversations -- ivy spoken with the senate majority leader today? >> the conversations are continuing. nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to. >> people are saying it is more positive. can you describe what it is more positive. >> we have made some progress.

>> is there enough progress that you can get this on the floor by friday? >> in the house, we have a three day layover policy so people can read the bill. it is pretty clear to most of you that once we reached the agreements it will take two or three days to put them all together. we believe it is important to move this troop funding bill that would keep the government funded for another week. >> [unintelligible] there are a number of people on the republican side the said they will not report for another cr. there were 54 last time. the democrats said they will not help you. >> we will pass with republican votes. no doubt about it. who said we cannot vote for another cr?

they have painted themselves into a corner. we have people today fighting for our liberty and our freedom. we do not want to pay them. we have one week where we are going to cut $12 billion. it is a fundamental bill that will pass with republican votes. if democrats do not want to join us, that is their choice. if the senate continues to not act, that is their choice. but we believe that america should move forward. >> if i could just add, republicans have no interest in shutting down the government. shutting down the government is irresponsible and i think it will end up costing american taxpayers more money than we are already spending. i believe that all the members want to support our troops. we are going to do the responsible thing to more. >> if you have gotten halfway to what you want, why not make a deal that would divert a government shut down?

>> it would be easy to just hold your cards and go home. that is not what the american people elected us to do. they elected us to cut spending because cutting spending will lead to a better environment for job creators to create jobs. we will fight for as many spending cuts as we can get. thank you, everybody. hos[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> now, more about the current budget debates. we will hear from minority whip steny warner -- steny hoyer. they will hear from mitch mcconnell. this is 10 minutes. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: madam speaker, budgets are not simply about dollars and cents. they are about values and priorities. and the debate over spending has revealed the republican priorities, in my opinion, the worst possible light. first, republicans passed a spending plan for the remainder of the fiscal year that would cripple america's ability to outinnovate, outeducate, and outbuild its competitors. that spending plan would cut billions in medical and energy research, cut out support for 20,000 research scientists, take 200,000 children out of head start, put college out of reach for millions of middle class students, and end vital infrastructure projects in 40 states. infrastructure projects would provide american jobs. a consensus of nop partisan economists has found the plan will cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs.

and mark zandi, who advised john mccain when he was running for president on economics, moody analytics chief economist and advisor to senator mccain said it would cost almost 7 00,000 jobs. in addition to these skewed priorities, republicans are insisting that any bill, any bill to keep the government open must also include controversial social policy provisions that have little if anything to do with the deficit. even though in their own pledge to america promised, and i quote, to end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with must-pass legislation. bills that should pass on their merits not as related to some extraneous issue. rather than compromise with president obama and the

democrats in the senate and house, republicans are threatening once again to shut down government. as they did in 1995. now they tell us that they'll back off on their threat but only if we pass a partisan, one-week spending bill that triples the ransom to keep the government opened. in other words, this bill contains three times the weekly cuts as the last week to week bill did. it also takes all cuts from only a small slice of the budget. frankly, madam speaker, that makes this latest bill a mockery of fiscal responsibility. especially because it leaves entirely untouched for the rest of the year what the secretary of defense himself has called the pentagon's culture of endless money. this partisan patch contradicts republicans' own promises to put everything on the table. defense spending included.

listen to their own words as reported by the associated press on january 23, quote, the house's new majority leader, representative carke cantor of virginia, has said defense programs could join others on the cutting board. but of course they haven't done that. "new york times" january 27 representative chris gibson, a tea party endorsed freshman republican and retired army colonel said, made it clear, that no part of the pentagon's $550 billion budget, some $700 billion including the wars in iraq and afghanistan was immune. he said this, this deficit that we have threatened our very way of life and everything needs to be on the table. however they have notdown that. congressman mike pence on january 7 said this, quote, if we are going to put our fiscal house in order, we have to be able to look at defense. we need a strong defense, i'm a supporter of a strong defense, but to take those dollars off

the table is irresponsible and inconsistent with the representations that our republican friends have made. those words are sounding very hollow, however, today while republicans breaking their word, madam speaker, because in my opinion they know that the only way to get their conference to support this spending bill is to bribe it with a year of defense spending left untouched. and a divisive social policy provision as well. which is what they said they would not do. what we need to do is sit down and over the next 72 hours now the next 48 hours, frankly, come to compromise, that's our job. my way or the high way is never going to get it done. finally, republicans showed their priorities in their budget for the upcoming fiscal year, we'll have a lot to say about that in the days ahead. their budget ends medicare as we know it.

seniors thought that they were going to protect medicare. well, their way of protecting it is ending it. it dismantles medicaid and other vital programs for our seniors. we'll talk a while about that seniors. objection. mr. mcconnell: madam presidt, across the country this morning, americans are wondering what's going on in washington this week. they want to know why it's taking so long to fund the government. americans want to know how we got to this point, and they deserve an answer, so here goes. each year, the majority party in congress is responsible for coming up with a budget plan at explains how they're going to pay for all the things that government does. it's not just a good idea. it's the law. congress has been required to do it since 1974. well, last year, the democratic leaders in congress decidedhey didn't want to do it. they didn't want to have the -- didn't want to have to publicly

defend their bloated spending and the debt that it's creating. so republicans had to come up with a temporary spending bill to keep the government running in the absence of any alternatives and leadership from our friends on the other side. republicans even passed a bill in the house that would keep the govement funded through the rest of the current fiscal year and which takes an important first step toward a smaller, more efficient government that helps improve the conditions for private sector job growth. this house bill would save us billions of dollars on our way to a conversation about trillions, and congressman ryan has done a service this week by setting the terms of the larger debate by outlining a plan that puts us back on a path to stability and prosperity. unfortunately, democrats have made a calculated decision that they didn't want to have either debate, so they have taken a pass on both. and frankly, it's hard not to be

struck by the contrasting apprches to our nation's fiscal problems that we have seen here in washington this week. on the one hand, you've got a plan b congressman ryan that every serious person has described as both honest and courageous. on the other hand, you've got people like the new chairwoman of the democratic national committee and the previous speaker of the house dismissing that plan in the most cartoonish language imaginable. while thinking people have seen in the ryan plan -- while thinking people have seen in the ryan plan an honest attempt to tackle our problems head on, ideologues on the left have seen a target to distort while offering no vision of their own to present a fiscal nightmare that we all know is approaching. and they still haven't come up with an alternative to the various republican proposals we have seen to keep the government and running in the current

fiscal year. they have just sort of sat on the sidelines, taking pot shots at everything republicans have proposed while rooting, rooting for a shutdown. that's why t republicans in the house have now proposed another bill this week that will fund the military for the rest of the year, to keep the government operating, and which gets us a little closer to the level of spending that even the senior senator from new york has called reasonable. the fact that democrats are now rejecting this offer, which even members of their own leadership have described as reasonable, i all the evidence you need that democrats are more concerned about the politics of this debate than keeping the government running. so let's be clear about something this morning. throughout this entire debate, republicans have not only said that we would prefer a bipartisan agreement that funds the government and protects defense spending at a time when we have got american troops

fighting in two wars, there is a republican plan on the table right now that would do just that. democrats can accept that proposal or they can reject it, but they can't blame aone but themsees if a shutdown does occur because they have done nothing whatsoever to prevent it. so with the clock ticking, i would once again encourage our democratic friends to get on board with this proposal and to support the kind of spending cuts that the american people have asked for and that their own leadership h >> while washington was immersed in the budget debate, the president was in pennsylvania to talk about energy policy. he taught briefly about federal spending and the possibility of a joke -- of a government shutdown.

>> i ask congress to send me a budget that still invest in research, still invest in infrastructure, still invest in education -- investments that are critical for us to compete with any country in the world. that is what i ask for several months ago. after weeks of negotiations, we have agreed to cut as much spending as the republicans in congress originally asked for. i have some democrats mad at me, but i said let's get passed last year's budget and focus on the future. we agreed to a compromise. somehow, we still do not have big deal. some folks are still trying to inject politics into what should be a simple debate about how to pay our bills.

there are all sorts of issues in there. abortion, the environment, health care -- there are times to have those discussions, but that time is not now. right now we need to make sure that we pay our bills and that the government stays open. if we do not reach common ground by saturday, the federal government shuts down. some of you may not be the sympathetic. you should eat -- here is the thing -- when government shuts down, in that maze that small business owner who is waiting to get a loan -- that business may not open. whoever he was planning to hire, suddenly, he may not have that job he is counting on. it may turn out that somebody who is trying to get a mortgage cannot have their paperwork

processed by the fha and now the person who was going to sell the house, what they were counting on, they cannot get it. folks who were planning a vacation to yellowstone -- it turns out the national parks are suddenly closed. you are out of luck. you may have to figure out if you get your money back for that resort you're going to stay at. these are things that affect ordinary families stay in and day out. it affects our economy right at the time when our economy is gaining momentum. we had the best jobs report we have had in a very long time this past friday. you know what? if companies do not like uncertainty. at they think we are having a shutdown of our government, that would halt momentum. all because of politics. i do not want to see washington politics get in the way of --

the least we can do is meet our responsibilities to produce a budget. that is not too much to ask for. that is what the american people expect from us. that is what they deserve. you want everybody to act like adults, quit playing games, realize it is not just my way or the highway. how many folks are married here? when is the last time you got your [unintelligible] that is not how it works. all right in? he lifted his wife's had up. [laughter] the fact is, you have to make compromises. that is what we are -- the american family. democrats and republicans need to get together, work to their differences, keep the government running so we can focus on keeping this economy growing, a focus of things like great --

clean energy. that is our job. people want to see results. you deserve no less than that. these are challenging times for america. we have been through the worst recession since before i was born. a lot of folks are still hurting out there. but if we come together and listen to each other, if we remember that we are one nation, that we are one people then i am confident that we will come out stronger than we were before. what makes me confident is seeing all of you and seeing what i am see all across america. people have drive, optimism. they are decent and do right by their families and do right by their communities. this is what has lifted us out of tough times before. this is what will carry america into the future. i thank you for the great work you are doing. with that, let me take some questions. i appreciate it. [applause]

>> democratic senator, charles schumer, sat down this morning with an interview with mike allen. their discussion mostly focused on the ongoing budget talks and the possibility of the government shut down this weekend. from the museum in washington, this is one hour. >> i first met the senator when he was a congressman. it was almost 25 years ago. i was part of a group of young folks in washington. it was a remarkable collection of staff. that is one thing senator schumer is good at. he has always collected a first-

rate staff. a number of his people have gone on to great things. charles schumer was making tons of used back then. under the current circumstances, if we cannot get chuck schumer and mike allen to make news on a day like today when we are facing the possibility of a government shutdown, we are in the wrong business. i feel certain we are going to make some news today. one thing i would like to do before we kicked things off is to thank bank of america. they are our sponsors for today. they had been a terrific partner with politico in many ventures. we appreciate their support here today. thank you very much. just a couple of quick program notes -- there will be questions once mike kick things off. start thinking of your questions

now. we would get to them towards the end of the session. if you want to follow this on twitter, you can do so at speeds the hashtag, >> thank you very much and welcome to play but breakfast and the c-span audience. we urge you, just questions. you can heckle, critique senator schumer. he is used to it. if the government shuts down on friday, will the democrats share in the blame?

>> the scenario is becoming clearer every day. the democrats want to avoid a shutdown. we are willing to meet our republicans half way, maybe even more so. senator and boehner wants to avoid a shutdown because he knows it will be bad for his party. the tea party contention is pulling him further and further away from a compromise. over the last few weeks, that reality has become clearer and clearer and clearer. it will not be 100-0. people were a lot -- realized that if the government shuts down, we are doing everything to avoid it, it is because the tea party has too much influence on the speaker and the government caucus. these are the people that say,

shut it down. the rallies where they say, shut it down. sarah palin says, shut it down. >> she is not in the house. >> maybe she will run. speaker boehner, it was reported at the house republican caucus on monday night said that if there is a shutdown, it will be blamed on republicans. >> if you are in the house, what can you do? >> i have great sympathy for speaker boehner. he has two constituencies. the first are the 250 members of his caucus. if 100 of them are in a mood of no compromise, it is hard to alienate them. at the same time, he is the leader of the republican party

in the country. he knows that for the republican party, to shut down would be a bad thing. he is torn. we are trying to give him as much flexibility. leader reid, myself and other democratic leaders are sympathetic to speaker boehner. we think he is a good man. because we are willing to go, it has been pretty clear that we are willing to meet our republican colleagues. the $33 billion number was not proposed by us. it was proposed by paul rogers and tea party folks on the right side of the republican party caucus that moved it up. there are not too many pictures of democratic elected officials saying shut it down, let the shot down come. >> you have pointed out that

the senate democrats have come a long way on the cots. does that suggest that the voters were right? that the voters who wanted to focus on spending were heard. >> the voters want two things at once. that is the difficulty we are in. the voters no question said, get rid of government waste. cut back on government spending that is not needed. this was the electorate. let's say the electorate as a whole. i am sure there are a lot of democrats that say the same thing. across the board, there was another mission that they gave us. that was to get the economy going, create jobs, and preserve the american dream. the american dream says to the average middle-class family that the odds are very high that you will do better 10 years from

today than you are today and your children will do better. it is hard to do both at once. it is very difficult. the good news is that president obama came up with just the right way. he has not been shy about cutting government waste and picking programs, some that he put in his proposal that i did not like. he said that the important activities that create job growth in the immediate future and the long-term future in the areas of education, scientific research, and infrastructure should not be caught, it should be grote -- it should grow. that is where the american people are at. there are some on the far left that would not be doing any cutting. and we left it up to them and said we would not make any cuts, we would be in a difficult position. those on the far right say do

nothing about job growth. cut everything. they seem to have a dominant voice on the republican side. the american people know that was not cancer research that caused the government deficits. >> during the last government shutdown, president clinton and the treasury secretary were engaged in trying to stop the shutdown. are you surprised that the president has not been more active? >> i think the president has done a very good job here. he has done it in his way in his style. he has been very strong in pushing both sides to an agreement. what you saw yesterday was a very good timing. he came out yesterday very strong.

i think the president has been an extremely constructive force. he has done it in his way in accordance with his style. >> you have seen him behind the scenes do it with his style. >> the president always says, let us reason together. he does not like to pick enemies or take shots at people. he would rather have these discussions. the discussion about the rising budget he said, good. when the time comes, we can have a debate about which direction the country should go. he does not like the budget. he does not like ryan's budget. he is glad that there can be a debate on the merits. on this issue, it is the same. come let us reason together. let us come together with a compromise in the middle.

he quietly, but resolutely, pushes in that direction and saves his public shots for one day are needed. >> the ryan budget was a huge political windfall. the democrats' plan to use it as the centerpiece of fund raising and advertising. is that not what people hate about washington? >> i have not heard democrats say that. we want to use it as a centerpiece of policy discussion. should we privatize medicare? the hard right believes, and get the government out of everything. privatize medicare. should we and our government at the middle class or the wealthy? the ryan budget does great things for the wealthy. they choose most of the cuts that target middle class people.

i always believed that there are three p's in politics. we try to bring them together. >> politico. >> that is the capital p. this is politics, policy, and press. one of the problems that politicians face is that when they tried to do politics and press a separate from policy, it flops. this is a policy debate. we think we are much closer to where the american people are than the ryan budget. it's time will come. >> you will not use the budget in fund-raising and advertising? >> it is a legitimate issue to discuss when the political campaigns come. we must discuss why is a bad idea with the american people.

>> the bottom line is that i have always believed that if you do the policy right and you have the press and the politics that follow, everything will fall into place. our first job will be to show the american people exactly what the ryan budget is. i bet your bottom dollar that they will prefer ours. senator conrad is working on some of these things on the budget. we have the bipartisan group of six looking at these issues. there is a lot of debate. i believe that we have to look at medicare and medicaid to get the budget down. instead of cutting the benefits, instead of handing it all over to the insurance companies and saying, you do what you want, we believe, and

we're dying to make progress on this, that it is delivery reform. the american system on health care, if not the best, it is one of the best in the world. it costs a lot more to deliver that health care than we should. if you improve the delivery, health groups that pay a salary to doctors deliver less health care and better cost than those who do not such as places like the mayo clinic or the one in washington state or even an insurance company that does it. like kaiser permanente day in california. even the study when they look at the difference between two cities, the one where there was delivery and they were interested in a comprehensive

delivery system at cost of half to medicare that the for-profit hospitals and doctors did, delivery system reform is the way to go. that is the difference. they say, privatize. leave at all up to the private sector. that is the fundamental difference between democrats and republicans. what i would like to see america stand for is that we are the party of growth. let the pie grow. i do not believe that the politics of redistribution work. i believe the politics of growth work better. i believe that government should play a role in growth. theack to the 1890's, 1920's and the lessons of history are forgotten. >> your statement about medicare

and medicaid, one state and about senate democratic leadership, this year, you have spelled out a framework for how you will be with this. can you imagine something like that? >> the group of six, i do not agree with them that social security should be part of it. they are focusing on medicare and medicaid and some suggestions there. i think you will find some suggestions that are much more consonant with what the american people want and need. >> when do you think we will hear from the gang of six? >> they are working pretty hard. senator durbin came into the house late last night. he usually comes in early. >> when you say the house, what do you mean? >> i live in a house with three other members of congress.

i have been married for 30 years. i have lived with my wife for 30 years. i have lived with george miller for 28 at his house in washington. senator delahunt, him and i share the downstairs. >> you actually shared a room? >> you know those houses. it is one long room and then there is a kitchen. in the front, there is a living room area. i was in the front and now i am in the back. i have got a single. now i am a senior. >> do you think there will be a shutdown or will not be a shutdown? >> there is a glimmer of hope. the president has a meeting. as i understand the reports, he was turned and strong. -- stern and strong.

then he made his statement. speaker boehner asked senator reid to come out. at the meeting, they continued the discussion. the appropriations committees met on into the night. there is a glimmer of hope that maybe we can come together. >> was that 30%? >> i am not going to put a percentage on it. i felt yesterday that we had come to the end of the road. i felt that today, maybe not. the forces working within the republican caucus may be the ones that are a little bit more reasonable and accommodating are gaining more of an upper hand. it is a glimmer. i would not say it is close to a done deal. >> the gang of six, when you push to put all of the

recommendations on the floor? >> you cannot answer that. >> you have a pretty good idea. >> the idea that everything should be on the table as part of it with the exception of social security. we have to look at revenues and we have to look at defense. >> you want to look at agriculture? >> you have to look at entitlements and the rest of the budget. that is the way to go to get the deficit down. if you try to focus on one area of the budget -- ryan leaves out taxes and he leaves out the fence. >> when you say revenue, what are you talking about? >> the revenue side, there are lots of different proposals. i believe that we should not have the bush tax cuts for billionaires.

we started it with a surplus when bill clinton left. we ended up with a deep deficit. aside from the recession, the greatest thing that caused that was growth in health care cost. the second were the bush tax cuts. >> where would you and the tax cuts? >> $1 million. there are lots of loopholes and subsidies that have outlived their usefulness. one of the most talked-about ones are the oil subsidies. they were passed to encourage production in america. they were passed when the price of oil was $17 a barrel. it is a combination. the idea of lowering the rate to the highest tax payers, i think the deficit commission did that because the republican side

demanded it. i do not agree with it. >> you want to address social security separately. tell us about that. >> social security did not cause the deficit. there is a law that says that the social security side of the accounting ledger and the rest of the federal government should be kept separate. even though the proposed changes in social security, all of the income from those changes went into social security. that had nothing to do with the deficit. if you keep that wall between the two, it has enough money to pay its requirements until 2037. the deficit is a far more immediate problem. the deficit is na cliff. we are the government and we are blindfolded. we are walking towards the clef. >> a lot of people are liking

that analogy. >> you might fall 100 steps away, you might fall 10 steps away. how do you do it? you have to be careful about it. we have to deal with deficit reduction. there is no question about it. >> let's go back to social security. >> social security to me, one more point about it, it is politically very difficult. including it as part of this deficit reduction complicates things. it makes it harder, not easier. if your not an ideologue, they say that it is a government program, we hate the government, let's end up privatizing it. even ryan knew that he could not go that far. he has a fast-track proposal that i will have to explore in

detail before i can talk about it in detail. social security, i was there in 1983. we only had six months to solve the problem. democrats and republicans came together to solve it. it does not have to be done immediately and does not have to be done as part of deficit reduction. as i said, it has a much greater time horizon. i would say, not in this congress. >> one of the elements of the ryan plan is changing from defined benefits to defined contributions. >> you are talking in terms of pensions? >> yes. >> pensions are a good thing. >> we are talking about medicare. >> you are talking about the payment.

keeping things in the hands of the insurance companies with no alternative is not the way to go. medicare is a government program that has been successful. when i ran for reelection last year, people forget that. i was out all around my state. i would meet these tea party activists. i respect them. they are involved in the government. their message is being heard. there are much -- there are other messages being heard also. their message is being heard and should be heard. i go over to people. get rid of the government. that government is our nemesis. they would look a little bit older. what is your health care? medicare. do not touch it. >> we are going live to the white house. >> we are going to continue to

work through the night. the speaker and i will get back together tomorrow morning and see how they did. i am confident that we can get this done. we are not there yet. hope lies the eternal. >> we did have a productive conversation this evening. we do have some honest differences. i do think we have made some progress. there is no agreement on the number era -- or the policy. there is an intent on both sides to continue to work together to solve this. no one wants the government to shut down. we will continue to work throughout the night and tomorrow. >> senate majority leader harry reid and house speaker john boehner talking after meeting with president obama. they are saying that negotiations on this budget will

continue throughout the night. funding for the federal government expires on friday. the republicans plan to vote on a one-year federal spending bill. they will cut $12 billion from the current federal spending. we go back to a program about 2011 federal spending. chuck schumer sat down for an interview with the chief political correspondent from political, mike allen. >> the president put it well. not only are they ideological, they have nothing to do with deficit reduction. we have enough trouble trying to come to an agreement without having to discuss issues like abortion, clean water, health care. those should be out and they will be. down the road, i hope we have an energy bill. i hope that we can get working on one.

we do have to reduce dependence on foreign oil. these are not a place for debate. >> if we could jump forward, who will be the three big pieces of legislation or the three big signatures of senate democrats in this congress? >> the first is job creation. we had a little retreat and we put together a plan or an agenda. at the top of the list is job creation up and down the line. one of the things we want to do is to encourage companies to create jobs here. they actually get tax breaks when they build plants overseas. we want to encourage them to bring jobs back home. we have ways to do that. my view, and i would like to see this as part of our program, china's currency still takes away millions of american jobs.

i have my differences with the administration. i do not think they have been tough enough on that issue. i would like to see us have an energy program where we reduce our dependence on foreign oil. we are working in a bipartisan way with the head of the energy committee. she is the ranking member. obviously, the global warming, cap-and-trade is not going to be part of the agenda. let me give you one example that is non-controversial. they have the lowest capital -- per capita consumption of energy. california. why? in 1978, governor jerry brown on his first run around as governor passed a law that said that you have to have very strong

efficiency standards for buildings both commercial and residential. any new building in california had to have that. all of the new buildings in 1978 had it. 48% of our energy consumption is heating and cooling. only 30% is moving, fuels' for trucks and all of that. the third is that we should come up with a good plan for deficit reduction. those would be the 3. >> could you imagining that been done in this congress? >> i could see all three of those getting done in this congress. i think the house will mellow a little bit as they get through the legislative ups and downs. i do say this. the republicans in the last congress have the idea of just saying no. now that the control the house

and have the large majority of the senate, the american people give them some responsibility for governing. >> you do not mention corporate tax reform. >> that would be part of the whole deficit. i think that corporate tax reform has a good shot. >> this year? >> this congress, yes. corporate tax reform is easier to do them personal tax reform. we might be able to have it next year. senator baucus is interested in this. we have had some meetings. corporate america wants to get those tax rates down. it will encourage job growth here, which is our first goal. r number one goal. at the same time, there are lots of loopholes that should be closed. i think corporate tax reform is

easy. i winced -- i would include that in the overall group of six. >> another hot issue for business is interchange fees on debit cards. they have put in a bill that would push off for two years. do you think that this necessary? >> it was passed rather quickly and then not have all of the hearings and everything else that lots of the rest of the bill did. i think the bill is a very good bill. it attempts to repeal large parts of it. it is generating an lot of steam and the house is not going to be look very -- looked very positively on in the senate. there is some momentum left by the senator that has done a great job to delay it. >> would you like to see a vote on that?

>> i think there will be a vote. >> this year? >> i think that there will be. >> do you see this having an unintended consequences? >> any major piece of legislation has to have some unintended consequences. i think it threats the needle pretty well. we needed reform. for financial to have no oversight of the holding companies of the three biggest firms that fail, aig, lehman brothers, and bear stearns, is a h hugeole in --huge hole in the upper structure. i did not want to see onerous things. the legislation, with some exceptions, threaded that needle pretty well. i think that the bill is going to strengthen new york. if there are